If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

BRETHREN, the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I love that line. Simple, to the point, sincere, common sensical yet rarely followed (by we netizens, anyway).

On a different topic, do deists claim to have an impersonal relationship with God? Or just a relationship with an impersonal God? Or perhaps an impersonal relationship with an impersonal God? And does two "impersonals" cancel each other out, like some sort of theological double negative?

Act: That which, in the time and respect being discussed, is the case.

Potency: That which, in the time and respect being discussed, may be the case but is not.

Whatever changes has its origins in that which exists, because only that which exists can be causally changed or effect a causal change. Therefore, every change is an incident of act realizing potency.

Now, a thing cannot be in a state of act and potency at the same time and in the same respect. Therefore, anything which changes has its origin in some antecedent cause of act.

For anything which has extension in spacetime, there are two possibilities regarding any fact about it: It was caused to be this way, or it always was this way.

If it always was this way, there must have been an infinite regress in time. However, an actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive addition. Therefore, the temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite. As such, anything which has extension in spacetime must admit of causal explanation.

Now as we have seen, the temporal events of the past cannot form an actual infinite. Therefore the causal chain of the past cannot form an actual infinite. Therefore, there must be some first cause.

Now since every causal relationship is an example of act realizing potency, a first cause, in order to be able to cause without having been caused, must be an entity of pure act. An actus purus. What are the attributes of an actus purus?

As we have seen, an actus purus cannot have extension in spacetime, because whatever has extension in spacetime admits of causal explanation. But that which contains no potency admits of no causal explanation.

There could only be one such entity. When we say that "An apple exists" and that "A horse exists" we mean the same thing by the word "exists". As such, existence does not differ from existence qua existence. So an actus purus admits of no differentiation, and there can only be one.

An actus purus, containing no potency, must be both perfect and perfectly simple, as it could not exist in any way other than just how it does exist.

Finally, an actus purus is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, as these laws govern the realization of potency by act, but an actus purus has no potency.

Thus we can know of the existence of a single entity, lacking extension in spacetime, which is perfect, perfectly simple, and immune from the laws of cause and effect, and which forms the first cause from which all other causes flow. This is the entity men call God.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 02:15:11 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

Know they lost? Isn't that statement highly subjective? If God's Energies are everywhere, then why can't People experience Him to some degree?

Quote

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence

Anything Empirical will always have a level of subjectivity. And so any and all evidence is evidence.

Quote

2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things

If you take this to it's logical conclusion then you can't trust science nor anything with the 5 senses. Well 6 senses. How do you know that your human brain isn't making up things now? How do you know your mind isn't playing tricks on you right now?

Quote

3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

The micro-world can be disproven with logic. Galileo's teloscope in looking at the moon was disproven with deductive logic. And so what does this tell you about logic? It should tell you that it has it's place, and that it can only tell you but so much. It is not infallible, it is limited and works within certain contexts.

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Ttc, how will you ever really know in the deepest sense if you refuse to even enter the laboratory?

If you don't believe that God exists, then why on earth have you dedicated a good part of your life to disproving Him? What drives you? If belief in God is pretty much on par with belief in unicorns, why not be a unicorn-belief debunker? What about a Bigfoot debunker? UFO's? The "God-delusion" market is pretty saturated right now, after all.

I mean... this reminds me of Christian fundamentalists who spend their whole lives trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that their religion is true, using arguments, logic, counter-arguments, ad infinitum. This kind of obsession with apologetics usually indicates to me that someone is seeking certainty, a definite answer, to a question that can't be definitely answered, or one just really isn't 100% sure about one's beliefs. And who can be so sure, really? Orthodoxy requires something entirely different. It is an invitation to come and see for yourself. And according to the saints, getting to know God in the deepest sense takes pretty dramatic and ongoing metanoia, asceticism, and self-denial, among other things. Even with these tools, we're told we can't force God out of hiding! You're fighting a pointless battle, one that will go in circles forever and ever, because...

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11:25

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica said: "We think we know a lot, but what we know is very little. Even those who have striven all their lives to bring progress to mankind - learned scientists and highly educated people - all realize that in the end that all their knowledge is but a grain of sand on the seashore." And of course Jesus said, to paraphrase: "To inherit the Kingdom, you must become as little children." One has to let go of what one thinks one knows in order to know. Ya know?

I'm sure you're familiar with Antony Flew? Well, he was a brilliant atheist for most of his life. So brilliant, in fact, that he eventually became skeptical even of skepticism itself, and came to believe in God. Google him!

Logged

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

And if we're doing biblical quotes, mina (since your sig is from Psalm 127), how about:

Romans 8:24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Or as Bertrand Russell put it: "We may define faith, as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We speak only of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

And if we're doing biblical quotes, mina (since your sig is from Psalm 127), how about:

Romans 8:24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Or as Bertrand Russell put it: "We may define faith, as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We speak only of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Faith is the way in which one thinks. I told you that already. It's not a matter of observable evidence, it's a matter of a way of thinking.

Have you ever wondered and asked for yourself, why is it that some atheists have resorted to belief later on in their lives? I can't speak for them, but certainly for myself, I see vanity in a cosmos without God.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 02:58:34 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

"Faith as belief in something for which there is no evidence"? What ridiculous statement. There's always evidence for something. Whether that evidence is deemed sufficient, is a personal issue.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Proof of nihilism? The idea that you are nothing but an existing consciousness that will cease to exist? Isn't that what you believe? What should I prove to you?

Proof of narrow-mindedness. I suppose I should have specified more precisely.

Quote

The tragedy of existence without God is complete vanity.

Where is the tragedy?

Look at this sig of another poster's here "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." Demonstrate the tragedy, please. The part about men being afraid of the light. Be it metaphorical photophobia or medical matters little. Where be the tragedy..? If there is none, why use that quote?

Quote

Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain.

It's bs though. A builder builds in vain if the work is never completed or completed and never used. A watchman stays awake in vain when it is reasonable to expect that he will not see what's coming even when it's coming.

Quote

In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat— for He grants sleep to those He loves."

Uh-huh... And..? (Point being..?)

Quote

Faith is the way in which one thinks. I believe I told you that already. It's not a matter of observable evidence, it's a matter of a way of thinking.

Have you ever wondered and asked for yourself, why is it that some atheists have resorted to belief later on in their lives? I can't speak for them, but certainly for myself, I see vanity in a cosmos without God.

If you're referring to death bed conversions most of those are lies by believers. What makes you think believers don't shed their faith later in life? In many cases they do.

I would also say your faith is probably (for all I know; I don't know you) limited to ideas pertaining to religion. In any other case, everyone wants evidence.

Nothing really. It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist. What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Nothing really. It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist. What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Let's see...you just told me that I don't like living and that I have no love in me...can you give me a reason for why I shouldn't ignore you?

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

But the existence of you and I can be disproven using logic. That there is no "proof," what proof do I have that you exist? That there are characters on the internet with your username? Creation proves a creator?

*sigh* Not this again. How many times do you have to be told that nobody is offering subjective evidence for why you should believe? It is offered as a reason for why that singular individual believes, and in that, they are justified. We've been over this...

Quote

2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things.

I'm trying to see the relevance of this, but I'm drawing blanks.

Quote

3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

On that contrary, myself, along with many others working in the top of their fields, whether philosophy, cosmology, biology, history, you name it, have logically arrived at the God of the Bible. It's not that difficult.

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

But the existence of you and I can be disproven using logic. That there is no "proof," what proof do I have that you exist? That there are characters on the internet with your username? Creation proves a creator?

I've asked TtC on several occasions to prove to me that he's not a brain in a vat, but alas, he refuses.

That's a sloppy restatement of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, which is only concerned with closed systems.

Energy/matter has extension in spacetime. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive addition. Therefore the temporal events of the past cannot be an actual infinite.

Since nothing with extension in spacetime can have always existed, anything with extension in spacetime has to have been caused to exist, energy included.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 07:33:58 PM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

*sigh* Not this again. How many times do you have to be told that nobody is offering subjective evidence for why you should believe? It is offered as a reason for why that singular individual believes, and in that, they are justified.

Not true. Lots of Christians are, even if you are not one of them.

Quote

We've been over this...

Just like I'm justified in believing that Elvis talks to me. Glad we could sort that out.

*sigh* Not this again. How many times do you have to be told that nobody is offering subjective evidence for why you should believe? It is offered as a reason for why that singular individual believes, and in that, they are justified.

Not true. Lots of Christians are, even if you are not one of them.

So that's in then? As long as one Christian somewhere does it, then the entire foundations of Christianity rest upon that?

Quote

Quote

We've been over this...

Just like I'm justified in believing that Elvis talks to me. Glad we could sort that out.

Principle. Of. Credulity. Learn it. You say you know what it is, but it's plainly clear that you do not.

So that's in then? As long as one Christian somewhere does it, then the entire foundations of Christianity rest upon that?

When did I say, or even imply, that?

Quote

Quote

We've been over this...

Just like I'm justified in believing that Elvis talks to me. Glad we could sort that out.

Quote

Principle of Testimony - with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eye-witnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.

"I believe that the Judeo-Christian God, an omniscicent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who exists outside of space and time, has a personality, created the universe, has always existed, did all of the things credited to him in the Bible, a book full of internal and external contradictions, absurdities, and clear inspirations from other religions/cultures/stories that he wrote etc., is communicating to me through my head, and we have a personal relationship."

"I believe that Elvis Presley, a dead celebrity whose existence is verifiable, is communicating to me through my head."

By the way, you said earlier that you didn't mean God talking to you through your head. What did you mean, then? Isn't that what prayer is all about?

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

But the existence of you and I can be disproven using logic. That there is no "proof," what proof do I have that you exist? That there are characters on the internet with your username? Creation proves a creator?

I've asked TtC on several occasions to prove to me that he's not a brain in a vat, but alas, he refuses.

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

1. If you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time trying to bash Him? If you were truly secure in your belief that God doesn't exist, wouldn't you just not care that others do believe and leave us Christians alone?

2. Why do you spend so much time trying to convince those who will never find you convincing if you are not really trying to convince yourself? Why, then, do you need to convince yourself of what you believe? Are you really that insecure in your faith?

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

I just love ontological materialism.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Nothing really. It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist. What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Let's see...you just told me that I don't like living and that I have no love in me...can you give me a reason for why I shouldn't ignore you?

Sorry for striking a nerve. Do you really think you can steamboat through here without opposition? I didn't mean that you have no love in you, only that you don't love yourself.

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Wrong. If the universe does, in fact, have a begining, then we would have to modify the law of conservation of energy and matter to mean, after the begining of the universe, matter and energy cannot be naturally created or destroyed.

Second, 'subjective evidence' can indeed be evidence if it is accurate. For example, if you walk into a room and it feels cold, then you check the thermostat and discover that it is 20°, then the subjective observation was accurate and could be used as evidence. Our legal system runs on such evidence, in which we ask 'experts' to present their subjective observations, then execute and imprison men based on such evidence. One term for this is 'circumstantial evidence.' Christians and 'believers' are not alone in using subjective evidence.

Third, if the human brian can so easily make things up, then we are also at a loss for determining what evidence is not subjective, since the frail brain you are pointing to much first determine what evidence is accurate or even 'objective.' As we all know from the recent 'global warming controversy,' objective evidence is not all that clear even in the scientific community. I even recall reading a book in college called 'How to Lie with Statistics' which explained how to take objective evidence and skew it without harming its objective reality.

Therefore, all evidence gathered through a faulty mind is suspect.

Fourth, since you began with 'all believers' (a logical fallacy I would argue), you must then explain how you can disprove all 'specific gods' using logic.

Fifth, the problem of logic rests with the human mind. Therefore, I must ask: do you think the human mind can understand the entire universe? If it cannot, then it cannot explain everything with logic, since the mind simply cannot grasp all of the facts and arrive at the conclusions you have using the process you have described, since a great deal of the objective evidence is either incomprehensible due to its magnitude or tampered with due to the subjectivity of human perception.

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Second, 'subjective evidence' can indeed be evidence if it is accurate. For example, if you walk into a room and it feels cold, then you check the thermostat and discover that it is 20°, then the subjective observation was accurate and could be used as evidence. Our legal system runs on such evidence, in which we ask 'experts' to present their subjective observations, then execute and imprison men based on such evidence. One term for this is 'circumstantial evidence.' Christians and 'believers' are not alone in using subjective evidence.

Third, if the human brian can so easily make things up, then we are also at a loss for determining what evidence is not subjective, since the frail brain you are pointing to much first determine what evidence is accurate or even 'objective.' As we all know from the recent 'global warming controversy,' objective evidence is not all that clear even in the scientific community. I even recall reading a book in college called 'How to Lie with Statistics' which explained how to take objective evidence and skew it without harming its objective reality.

Therefore, all evidence gathered through a faulty mind is suspect.

Fourth, since you began with 'all believers' (a logical fallacy I would argue), you must then explain how you can disprove all 'specific gods' using logic.

Fifth, the problem of logic rests with the human mind. Therefore, I must ask: do you think the human mind can understand the entire universe? If it cannot, then it cannot explain everything with logic, since the mind simply cannot grasp all of the facts and arrive at the conclusions you have using the process you have described, since a great deal of the objective evidence is either incomprehensible due to its magnitude or tampered with due to the subjectivity of human perception.

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

A fine post, Father! Unfortunately, TryingtoConvert is only going to say something about an "axiom" and leave it at that. He's not quite convinced yet just how troubling the trustworthiness of the brain is for materialists.

I rather do appreciate people who take being rational as a serious pursuit, because I think we are too often ruled by our passions and emotions, neither of which do we spend much time trying to examine.

However, the search for truth requires a certain amount of practicality: a logical argument does not always account for reality. Lots of things happen that are illogical, which is why we still have problems with our computers!

A fine post, Father! Unfortunately, TryingtoConvert is only going to say something about an "axiom" and leave it at that. He's not quite convinced yet just how troubling the trustworthiness of the brain is for materialists.

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

For the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to convert, but unable to understand our point of view, and so challenges it to see what answer we can give him.

Fwiw, I remember spending a couple months when I first found out about Orthodoxy being very combative (wait, have I changed? ). My attitude at the time was: if they are who they say they are, they should be able to handle the heat. I eventually came to believe that this was a misguided approach, but I can totally understanding wanting to see how people respond to strong opposition.

I suppose, Asteriktos, that I'm not as optimistic when I see people behave badly in the beginning. The measure is whether he can take the heat when it is turned back on him. Most folks who shovel out have difficulties receiving the same treatment in return. If he can then you may be right. If he can't, then he's just another, well, I'm sure you know what I mean...

Years ago, I dealt with a lady who was rather famous for screaming at priests. They were all patient men, and she went through them like a bowling ball through the pins. I took her abuse the first time, but the second time I matched her tone for tone (without the ad hominems). She blew through the roof, but afterwards she became one of the most polite people I had to deal with at the time.

For the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to convert, but unable to understand our point of view, and so challenges it to see what answer we can give him.

Fwiw, I remember spending a couple months when I first found out about Orthodoxy being very combative (wait, have I changed? ). My attitude at the time was: if they are who they say they are, they should be able to handle the heat. I eventually came to believe that this was a misguided approach, but I can totally understanding wanting to see how people respond to strong opposition.

Ya, I took the same approach. When I first met with my priest I came to him with a battery of critical questions. Same thing when I first came to these forums.

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Mmmm, meat. I am a bag of meat wrapped in cabbage today (I am what I eat). There's nothing like being a bag of meat with a supernatural appendage.

I suppose, Asteriktos, that I'm not as optimistic when I see people behave badly in the beginning. The measure is whether he can take the heat when it is turned back on him. Most folks who shovel out have difficulties receiving the same treatment in return. If he can then you may be right. If he can't, then he's just another, well, I'm sure you know what I mean... ;)Years ago, I dealt with a lady who was rather famous for screaming at priests. They were all patient men, and she went through them like a bowling ball through the pins. I took her abuse the first time, but the second time I matched her tone for tone (without the ad hominems). She blew through the roof, but afterwards she became one of the most polite people I had to deal with at the time.So, I can see your point. Let's wait and see.

Good thoughts. We human beings are sick, deluded people by their own reasonings. What a wonderful prayer in the prayers after communion that we be delivered from the captivity of our own reasonings.